CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2. INTRODUCTION
2.7. THE MATRIX MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE/HOW CAN WE MAKE THE MATRIX MANAGEMENT ORGANISATION STRUCTURE WORK
Burton et. al. (2015) asserts that matrix organisations are usually chosen for strategic reasons and that many organisations that have moved to matrix management organisation structure have found out that
Page 50 of 132
they were not able to attain the benefits that were expected from the matrix management organisation structure. Most organisations expect to just plug in a matrix into an existing structure and expect success. The matrix management organisation structures need to be developed exclusively as organisations are different and also the utilization of the matrix management organisation structure will be unique and different for each organisation. The matrix management organisation structure also affects the individuals and teams working in the matrix as information flow and decision making are different and unique in a matrix management organisation structure compared to a traditional hierarchical organisation (Burton et al., 2015).
Joyce (1986) identified three hypotheses that should be considered when implementing a matrix management organisation structure regarding communication. These hypotheses are as follows: “The amount and frequency of forma communication should increase, Informal communication should decrease, and Directive quality of formal communication should increase”. Only the first two hypotheses seemed possible, the last one was not always relevant. For the matrix management organisation structure to work, there should be open communication and speedy problem solving.
According to Parker 2003, the skills and competencies that are required in matrix management organisation structures should be as follows:
“Team leadership,
Goal alignment,
Tactics of fostering internal communication and
Building bridges to stakeholders outside the team” (Parker, 2003).
a) Critical success factors
According to Burton et. al. (2015), “most organisations, both public and private are changing their structures to complex matrix management organisation structures in order to meet the growing complexity in the world that they operate, and these organisations are battling to reap the benefits of a matrix organisation. Burton et. al. argue that, for the matrix management organisation structure to work, there are three factors that are critical for its success. These critical success factors are as follows:
i. Strong purpose: the matrix management organization structure should be chosen only if there are strong reasons to do so
ii. Alignment among contingencies: a matrix management organization structure can only be successful if key contingencies are aligned with the matrix’s purpose
Page 51 of 132
iii. Management functions – the success of matrix depends on how well activities at the junctions of the matrix are managed, the junctions at which dimensions of the matrix come together” (Burton et al., 2015).
b) Knowledge and information sharing
“The matrix organisation has both a ‘high-tension and high-readiness to change’ climate. In a high- tension climate, employees must have adequate resources to deal with change, and their attitude must be open to change” (Burton et.al., 2015). Employees’ tension should not be allowed to be high and for them to be on the edge as it affects their performance. According to Burton et. al. (2015), the tension helps to drive performance as people deal with fluctuations in trust and conflict; this makes the people to be willing to change and accept new challenges and opportunities if they believe that their goals can be met. The employees need to understand the purpose of the matrix management organisation structure as this would assist them in understanding the organisation. The key contingency in the matrix management organisation structure is the knowledge development and sharing of information. The interpersonal relationships between team members are key in the matrix management organisation structure as these promote information and knowledge sharing. The teams in the matrix management organisation structure rely on each other’s skills and effectiveness to carry the project to success. Matrix management organisation structures should have a higher information processing capacity and easier ways to share information (Burton et al., 2015).
According to Burton et.al. (2015), “a matrix organisation is needed only if the environment is uncertain, because once its configured, there are a number of design elements specified in a multi-contingency model that have to be aligned to the matrix.” They continue to proclaim that for the matrix to be successful, it should go beyond the configuration itself, as the matrix requires its own leadership, culture, knowledge sharing, information technology, and incentives. Close inter-relationships among the activities must be created in the organisation when creating a matrix management organisation structure. The organisation should invest in ways of coordinating the work among repetitive tasks and also create a support function for the non-repetitive tasks. Burton et. al. (2015) assert that by doing this, it encourages those who are responsible for the tasks to be creative and develop innovative ways of doing the work, whilst accommodating the needs of the customers in their functional jobs and integrating their work with other departments in the organisation; and above all availing themselves to the requirements of the projects that are being undertaken. In conclusion, Burton et. al. (2015) confirm that the matrix organisation requires ‘producer leaders’, individuals who are able to delegate and who
Page 52 of 132
have a tolerance for uncertainty and who can manage around at least two dimensions simultaneously (Burton et al., 2015).
c) Senior Management support to the matrix management organization structure
According to Stuckenbruck (1988), for the matrix management organisation structure to work, the senior management must support the employees working in the matrix. A project charter should be drawn up for every project that is performed under the matrix management organisation structure.
“This project charter should state the purpose of the project and spell out the responsibilities and authority of the project manager. The charter should also indicate to the fullest extent possible his relationships with the functional managers involved in the project. Functional management must adjust their managerial thinking and their usual operational procedures and activities in order to make the matrix work. There should be considerable change in the way they determine their priorities, project should be put first. Project management must realize that they get their job accomplished primarily through the process of negotiation, and that they should become negotiation experts. If all major decisions are made with the concurrence of the involved functional managers, the project manager finds himself in a very strong position in insisting that the decision be carried out and that the desired goals be accomplished. In addition, the project personnel must be able to adapt to the two-boss situation which can be a traumatic experience when first encountered” (Stuckenbruck, 1988).
d) Project and functional Interface
Stuckenbruck (1988) asserts that for the matrix management organisation structure to successfully function, the project and functional interface and the type of interface relationships between the project and individual functional managers should be very strong. The author asserts that the project manager and the functional managers should ensure that every project decision and action must be negotiated across this interface as the interface is an established natural conflict situation since many of the goals and objectives of project and functional management are different. The interface can be one of smooth-working cooperation or bitter conflict. Both managers will need to ensure that they do not domineer the other or have power play tendencies. The keys to ensuring that the decision making is successful on the project or functional interface is to ensure cooperation of all parties involved and having fair negotiations. The project or functional manager managers should be cautious of making subjective and one-sided decisions as this could lead to or strengthen the potential for conflict. The
Page 53 of 132
project managers depends on the cooperation and support of the functional managers and unfortunately can accomplish little by himself (Stuckenbruck, 1988).
The project manager in a matrix organization interfaces with top management and with functional management. These two interfaces are very important for a project manager. The project manager should develop a very good working relationship with the top management, this will ensure that he/she has access top management support which would be critical for resolving big problems and removing obstacles. Having a good working relationship between the functional management and the project manager will ensure that most problems are resolved at their level and will not have to be escalated or go to top management for resolving. Both managers should communicate with each frequently. Both managers should consult each other when required, cooperate, and meet the needs of the other and offer each other constant support. The relationship between the project manager and a functional manager is very important and it is key to the success of any matrix management organisation structure; it should be carefully nurtured and actively promoted by top management (Stuckenbruck, 1988).
Burton et.al. (2015), claims that for the matrix organisation to work, it is critical that the individuals and teams working on it understand why it was selected for the particular project. The individuals working it should implement, manage, and run it; they should have logic when dealing with contradictory goals, disagreeing bosses, time differences, incentives inconsistency, and etcetera. The management working on the structure, both the functional and project management need to understand and accept the purpose of the matrix management organisation structure and should ensure that it is rolled out effectively in the projects (Burton et al., 2015).
e) Achieving a Balance of Power
For projects to work the management has to work hand in hand and in harmony to achieve the end-goal or result irrespective of the possible conflicting objectives and roles. The matrix management organization structure is set up such that conflict is used as method intentionally to get the job done.
This would work if the project team focuses on getting the job done and resolving problems as a team and be less concerned on who solves the problem. The project team should give an emphasis on teamwork and problem solving rather than role definition. The achievement of balance of power between both the project manager and functional manager should be a goal that both managers (with the assistance of project team) should work towards to. The potential power struggles and unnecessary
Page 54 of 132
conflicts should be avoided and minimized at all costs. The author proclaims that it is probably seldom to achieve a balance of power and there is no way to ensure it. The author further proclaims that the approach that can be used to make sure that the balance of power is achieved is to assume that the project manager reports at a higher level in the management hierarchy and has the full support of top management (Stuckenbruck, 1988).
f) Collaboration
Herzog (2001) asserts that “Collaboration can be described as a social group dependent on trust as a form of capital investment for the attainment of goals and objectives”. The author’s statement indicates the magnitude the trust and collaboration the group has on each other. The author further states that the foundation for building successful partnerships is trust. (Herzog, 2001). Leufkens et. al. (2011) indicates that the recipe for ensuring proper collaboration on a project is creating relationships and that they are very important (Leufkens and Noorderhaven, 2011). Sy (2005) claims that in some companies the team members collaborate in order to find a solution or complete a task. These team members usually resolve these problems informally, by having informal negotiations. This is done irrespective of who has authority and the collaborative culture assists with overcoming the notorious problem of ambiguous authority. The above indicates that the ambiguous authority lines may be countered by proper collaboration between project team members (Sy et al., 2005).